No such thing as a best "generation"

[ScentOfDefeat]

[I've used this post as a reply in another thread, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss the subject in a thread of its own]

I find it hard to subscribe to the "generation" argument. First of all, you can start counting a generation anywhere, with any timeline you want. Every tennis player can belong to one generation but also represent the transition from one generation to another. You can pick any generation you want with multiple Slam winners and call it the best: Connors, McEnroe, Borg; Sampras, Agassi, Becker; Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. Slams are there to be won, independently of who wins them or the level of play achieved. If there's no one else around, how can you know that the next generation won't produce multiple Slam winners called Janowicz, Nishikori, Tomic or Dimitrov?

And even if you come up with a fictional generation (because they're all fictional, you have to "create" them by putting together players who aren't even the same age) where the top players have won more Slams than other so called "generations", what makes them all-time greats compared to another fictional generation where, for instance, 8 different players have won 2 Slams each in a more competitive field, where all of them beat each other regularly and none of them had the upper-hand over the others?

This is why I think you can only ever hope to be the best player in your own career, because all universal comparisons - between players or generations - are aways flawed.

 

[Finesse4sum]

Most people subconsciously believe "Old is the past and only new is better"
Its hard for people to not put down the fed/djok/nadals of other eras.

You are right though in a span of 5 years there is 20 slams to contend for with only so many players winning multi slams. The number of slams cant be the be all end all with different things such as skipping tournaments for many years (AO quite often) and even Agassi and Sampras didnt see the 4 GS tournaments the way the current players do now (Agassi skipping AO 8 years in a row which ended up being his best tournament) Even the Olympic Gold becoming a main achievement of greatness because Rafa won it is absolutely ridiculous.

But based on overcoming difficult obstacles winning slams against contemporaries that were larger than life I think Djokovic and Lendl are true champions in that regard.

Different eras find different stats and wins important. Although some things will never be broken like some of Wayne Gretsky's outrageous numbers or Michael Phelps massive quantity of gold medals in swimming most records are meant to be broken.

 

[mattennis]

[I've used this post as a reply in another thread, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss the subject in a thread of its own]

I find it hard to subscribe to the "generation" argument. First of all, you can start counting a generation anywhere, with any timeline you want. Every tennis player can belong to one generation but also represent the transition from one generation to another. You can pick any generation you want with multiple Slam winners and call it the best: Connors, McEnroe, Borg; Sampras, Agassi, Becker; Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. Slams are there to be won, independently of who wins them or the level of play achieved. If there's no one else around, how can you know that the next generation won't produce multiple Slam winners called Janowicz, Nishikori, Tomic or Dimitrov?

And even if you come up with a fictional generation (because they're all fictional, you have to "create" them by putting together players who aren't even the same age) where the top players have won more Slams than other so called "generations", what makes them all-time greats compared to another fictional generation where, for instance, 8 different players have won 2 Slams each in a more competitive field, where all of them beat each other regularly and none of them had the upper-hand over the others?

This is why I think you can only ever hope to be the best player in your own career, because all universal comparisons - between players or generations - are aways flawed.

Of course you're right.

At the same time, there have been some examples I like to call "a great group of players more or less of the same age", like what happened at the beginning of the 90s with, at times, six or even seven top-10 players (at the same time) being all of them 20-22 years old. That generation (Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Chang, Bruguera, Ivanisevic, Krajicek) caused a profound impact in the game back then. It was talked about "why and how have suddenly appeared such a large group of exceptionals young talents at the same time?".

But you're right that is senseless to try to compare then to other great "groups of players of the same age" of other eras.

That mentioned group of players, maybe stormed to the top being all of them such young, because perhaps it was the first generation of young players that maximized (in a certain sense) the "new" technology of graphite racquets, or maybe it was by chance, or for other reasons, but I think we will never see again six or seven top-10 players being 20-22 years old.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Most people subconsciously believe "Old is the past and only new is better"
Its hard for people to not put down the fed/djok/nadals of other eras.

You are right though in a span of 5 years there is 20 slams to contend for with only so many players winning multi slams. The number of slams cant be the be all end all with different things such as skipping tournaments for many years (AO quite often) and even Agassi and Sampras didnt see the 4 GS tournaments the way the current players do now (Agassi skipping AO 8 years in a row which ended up being his best tournament) Even the Olympic Gold becoming a main achievement of greatness because Rafa won it is absolutely ridiculous.

But based on overcoming difficult obstacles winning slams against contemporaries that were larger than life I think Djokovic and Lendl are true champions in that regard.

Different eras find different stats and wins important. Although some things will never be broken like some of Wayne Gretsky's outrageous numbers or Michael Phelps massive quantity of gold medals in swimming most records are meant to be broken.

Agreed. I don't know about Gretzky, but swimming is, of course, a race - and it has only become similar to tennis since Spitz won all those medals at the Olympics. From then on, you could have a Michael Phelps who, of course, was interested in setting world records for his races, but more importantly he was chasing after - and eventually overcoming - Spitz's gold medal record. Swimming was never equated with "winning x amount of Slams" in tennis until those two came along. In athletics, Bubka was without any doubt the greatest pole vaulter in the world, but his Olympic record ( 1 win in 1988 ) was worse than Bob Richards' (who won gold in 1952 and 1956). I was a swimmer in the late 90's and early 2000's and swam faster than Spitz, as did all my fellow swimmers. Does that make me a better athlete than Spitz? Of course not. It all comes down to competition and how you deal with it when you're practicing a given sport. It's not what a pundit or even the fans say is a record worth beating that showcases the true value of any athlete.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Of course you're right.

At the same time, there have been some examples I like to call "a great group of players more or less of the same age", like what happened at the beginning of the 90s with, at times, six or even seven top-10 players (at the same time) being all of them 20-22 years old. That generation (Agassi, Courier, Sampras, Chang, Bruguera, Ivanisevic, Krajicek) caused a profound impact in the game back then. It was talked about "why and how have suddenly appeared such a large group of exceptionals young talents at the same time?".

But you're right that is senseless to try to compare then to other great "groups of players of the same age" of other eras.

That mentioned group of players, maybe stormed to the top being all of them such young, because perhaps it was the first generation of young players that maximized (in a certain sense) the "new" technology of graphite racquets, or maybe it was by chance, or for other reasons, but I think we will never see again six or seven top-10 players being 20-22 years old.

That's a true generation, in the real sense of the word. But what people call "the best generation" is always a mish-mash of different players (like putting together Federer and Nadal, who are 5 years apart). It would of course be less exciting to proclaim Federer and Nalbandian and Youzhny as a generation because it wouldn't serve the proclaimer's interest in associating his lifetime with exceptional tennis.

 

[LuckyR]

While it is true that players of one era can't literally play those of other eras (in any meaningful fashion), there are two issues with Pro tennis that not directly, but statistically show that Modern era players play better tennis than those of older eras.

The first is that worldwide tennis popularity increases over time. Thus the pool of talent becomes larger over time, thus winners now are winners over a larger denominator than in past eras. Again, this does not prove anything directly, but statistically it is pretty easy to understand and is a reproducible reality.

Second, the tech improvements (strings and thus stroke style) mean that the tennis being played now is better tennis. When I say "better" I mean winning in matchplay. You can argue that it is "boring", or too cookie cutter, but it will win against equal talent with older tech and strokes at the Pro level.

Naturally anyone can play the "what if Laver had access to Modern tech and training?" game. It is a legitimate question, but it is a different question.

 

[Finesse4sum]

Agreed. I don't know about Gretzky, but swimming is, of course, a race - and it has only become similar to tennis since Spitz won all those medals at the Olympics. From then on, you could have a Michael Phelps who, of course, was interested in setting world records for his races, but more importantly he was chasing after - and eventually overcoming - Spitz's gold medal record. Swimming was never equated with "winning x amount of Slams" in tennis until those two came along. In athletics, Bubka was without any doubt the greatest pole vaulter in the world, but his Olympic record ( 1 win in 1988 ) was worse than Bob Richards' (who won gold in 1952 and 1956). I was a swimmer in the late 90's and early 2000's and swam faster than Spitz, as did all my fellow swimmers. Does that make me a better athlete than Spitz? Of course not. It all comes down to competition and how you deal with it when you're practicing a given sport. It's not what a pundit or even the fans say is a record worth beating that showcases the true value of any athlete.

Thats amazing that you competed in the field. I've heard that as a swimmer you have to practice every single day or else you begin to lose it. What was the training regimen like if you dont mind me asking? Were you always keen on watching the Olympics? How'd you get into watching tennis?

 

[newpball]

[I've used this post as a reply in another thread, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss the subject in a thread of its own]

I find it hard to subscribe to the "generation" argument. First of all, you can start counting a generation anywhere, with any timeline you want. Every tennis player can belong to one generation but also represent the transition from one generation to another. You can pick any generation you want with multiple Slam winners and call it the best: Connors, McEnroe, Borg; Sampras, Agassi, Becker; Federer, Nadal, Djokovic. Slams are there to be won, independently of who wins them or the level of play achieved. If there's no one else around, how can you know that the next generation won't produce multiple Slam winners called Janowicz, Nishikori, Tomic or Dimitrov?

And even if you come up with a fictional generation (because they're all fictional, you have to "create" them by putting together players who aren't even the same age) where the top players have won more Slams than other so called "generations", what makes them all-time greats compared to another fictional generation where, for instance, 8 different players have won 2 Slams each in a more competitive field, where all of them beat each other regularly and none of them had the upper-hand over the others?

This is why I think you can only ever hope to be the best player in your own career, because all universal comparisons - between players or generations - are aways flawed.

I think it all has to do with the generation judging the age instead of the generation of tennis players in question.

What a person considers the golden age of just about anything, be it music, movies, tennis or what have you, is most likely the period of their formative years, the time approximately between 15 - 25 years old.

Also the older people get the more they tend to live in the past, memories become more important, looking back instead of looking forward, trying to relive old experiences, "in the old times everything was better".

I mean, objectively speaking, who in their right mind would want to see McEnroe play Borg right now? Their playing abilities have greatly diminished due to their age and long disconnect from the circuit. But no some want to see it over and over again and they are willing to pay top dollar for it. The works, with the same silly jokes, McEnroe getting mad at a point, the laughter, the relive, just like in the old 'golden' days.

An insatiable need to relive the past. It is not a problem, don't get me wrong, the stadiums are filled the public is happy, but it just shows how age is pushing us farther into ourselves, deeper into our memories.

You might want to scream: Go out there and smell the coffee! Watch some contemporary tennis! But no, to no avail, their are watching another redo of an old Wimbledon Borg vs McEnroe finals. Aye, the old days, those good old times, see, so much better than now!

It is a phenomenon as old as humanity itself.

"Gee our old LaSale ran great"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyS-jehNex8

Those were the days!

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

While it is true that players of one era can't literally play those of other eras (in any meaningful fashion), there are two issues with Pro tennis that not directly, but statistically show that Modern era players play better tennis than those of older eras.

The first is that worldwide tennis popularity increases over time. Thus the pool of talent becomes larger over time, thus winners now are winners over a larger denominator than in past eras. Again, this does not prove anything directly, but statistically it is pretty easy to understand and is a reproducible reality.

Second, the tech improvements (strings and thus stroke style) mean that the tennis being played now is better tennis. When I say "better" I mean winning in matchplay. You can argue that it is "boring", or too cookie cutter, but it will win against equal talent with older tech and strokes at the Pro level.

Naturally anyone can play the "what if Laver had access to Modern tech and training?" game. It is a legitimate question, but it is a different question.

Yes, I remember a few months back someone putting forth this exact argument, it's a good one. It might have been you, the terms are very similar. Of course, even if the tennis that's played now compared to the past is better (in terms of it being a formula that wins more matches), what really matters is that you can only really play within a specific context: and that's where a career is made.

 

[bluegrasser]

Starting tennis in the 70's was a thrill, everybody was into it, I remember driving all over town to try and find a court, then you throw in all the personalities like Mac, Borg, Connors, Nastase. So Newpball, memories come into the equation, *but* for a reason, the game was more interesting, such a variety of skills and personalities. If today's game would par up to the last generation, I'd be the first one on the bandwagon, why ? because I love the game.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

Thats amazing that you competed in the field. I've heard that as a swimmer you have to practice every single day or else you begin to lose it. What was the training regimen like if you dont mind me asking? Were you always keen on watching the Olympics? How'd you get into watching tennis?

Well, I competed as a junior and then only one year and a half as a pro. Yeah, we practiced 6 days a week (except Sundays), twice a day. 2 hours in the morning and two hours in the afternoon. It became very taxing on my body and on my life overall, I had trouble concentrating in school and then in college. All I remember as a kid was the other kids in my class going to parties and I'd be the one saying "sorry guys, swimming in the morning". It was also tough for my parents because they had to travel around with me to trials and competitions. Eventually I had to quit because I wanted to study and not be a swimmer. It took me 4 or 5 years of complete "detox" to enjoy swimming again. So I really admire swimmers, I know what they've been through and the perseverance that you need to make it in the sport. I'll admit it, I didn't have it in me.

 

[ScentOfDefeat]

I think it all has to do with the generation judging the age instead of the generation of tennis players in question.

What a person considers the golden age of just about anything, be it music, movies, tennis or what have you, is most likely the period of their formative years, the time approximately between 15 - 25 years old.

Also the older people get the more they tend to live in the past, memories become more important, looking back instead of looking forward, trying to relive old experiences, "in the old times everything was better".

I mean, objectively speaking, who in their right mind would want to see McEnroe play Borg right now? Their playing abilities have greatly diminished due to their age and long disconnect from the circuit. But no some want to see it over and over again and they are willing to pay top dollar for it. The works, with the same silly jokes, McEnroe getting mad at a point, the laughter, the relive, just like in the old 'golden' days.

An insatiable need to relive the past. It is not a problem, don't get me wrong, the stadiums are filled the public is happy, but it just shows how age is pushing us farther into ourselves, deeper into our memories.

You might want to scream: Go out there and smell the coffee! Watch some contemporary tennis! But no, to no avail, their are watching another redo of an old Wimbledon Borg vs McEnroe finals. Aye, the old days, those good old times, see, so much better than now!

It is a phenomenon as old as humanity itself.

"Gee our old LaSale ran great"!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyS-jehNex8

Those were the days!

Hahaha, that's true. Even so, you can get the "this current generation is the best ever" argument from overexcited pundits as well. It's the same argument for schools/education: nostalgics will put forth the idea that "back in the day schools were better and we actually learned something", but reformers and educators will tend to say "we are building the schools of the future, where children will finally have all the opportunities they deserve". What is never questioned is this very simple idea: why does every generation reproduce this same idea of a decadent school system? Maybe school works because it's always thought of as inefficient and we can't see beyond the duality.

 

[newpball]

Even so, you can get the "this current generation is the best ever" argument from overexcited pundits as well.

Absolutely, the current 15-25 year old players and fans will, when they get in the autumn of their life complain that in the old days, e.g 2013, the days of Federer, Nadal , Djokovic things were so much better, in those times the players were characters and there was so much skill, but nowadays in 2033 it is just so boring. :grin:

That it happens cannot really be avoided but what is sad is that so many older people do not realize it.

 

[newpball]

It's the same argument for schools/education: nostalgics will put forth the idea that "back in the day schools were better and we actually learned something", but reformers and educators will tend to say "we are building the schools of the future, where children will finally have all the opportunities they deserve". What is never questioned is this very simple idea: why does every generation reproduce this same idea of a decadent school system? Maybe school works because it's always thought of as inefficient and we can't see beyond the duality.

Indeed!

I think it is the way memory works, it develops layers of chrome over time, things become more shiny, the factual recollection starts to fail and is replaced with glorified fantasy.

 

[JMR]

That's a true generation, in the real sense of the word. But what people call "the best generation" is always a mish-mash of different players (like putting together Federer and Nadal, who are 5 years apart). It would of course be less exciting to proclaim Federer and Nalbandian and Youzhny as a generation because it wouldn't serve the proclaimer's interest in associating his lifetime with exceptional tennis.

I don't believe Federer and Nadal are commonly described as being members of the same generation. Most people understand that they are not. But when two rivals, even intergenerational rivals, produce great results over similar periods of time, then talk of a great "era" or "age" is sure to follow.

Federer's actual generation includes Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, and Ferrero, as well as Nalbandian and Davydenko. No other GOAT candidates in that list, but there are slam winners, No. 1s, and WTF champs. A solid group of players.